The Shack: Initial Thoughts

I've been somewhat reluctant to read The Shack by William Young. Truthfully, the premise of the book just hasn't caught my interest. But I haven't succeeded in avoiding the debate over the book. I know some folks who say that the book has had a profound impact on their intimacy with God and their understanding of his nature, while others are deeply concerned about theological errors it introduces. I've spoken with one pastor who suggests that it's a great tool for helping people pierce through their preconceptions about God's character, and another pastor who refers to it as "poisoned grass" from which us shepherds must protect the flock.

So I've finally started working my way through the book. (I'm actually listening to it on unabridged audio CD, which is interesting because the reader uses subtle inflections for each character.) I'm about half way through.

For those who are unfamiliar with The Shack -- and without spoiling the plot here -- it's a novel about an individual who has faced extraordinary tragedy and deep personal pain. This individual has an opportunity to encounter God in a very unconventional way. The book uses the form of narrative to explore theological and relational issues as God seeks to reveal himself and his compassionate heart for mankind.

So far, I've been somewhat unimpressed by the writing style of the author. It feels a bit clumsy and predictable, and I find that a bit distracting. This is especially true when the story transitions to the conversation with God. The introduction of miraculous elements is fairly jarring and awkward.

But I've appreciated the development of the central character of the story -- Mack -- whose sorrow and anger is easy to sympathize with. I find myself increasingly curious how the author will have God answer his painful questions about his life's experiences.

Now, I don't want to give anything away for those who intend to read the story, but I have to talk a bit about the manner in which God reveals himself. The author has intentionally chosen an uncomfortable form in which God appears in the story. God even explains to Mack that this form of revelation is an intentional way to overcome preconceptions and stereotypes, so that Mack (and, presumably, the reader) will have an opportunity to see God in a fresh, new way. I completely understand the author's motivation in this approach. I really do get it.

However, I can also begin to see why the book has stirred up some controversy because of this. Without a doubt, the theological implications of the author's presentation of God are erroneous, especially in describing the nature of the Trinity and the dynamics of the atonement of Christ. In listening to the story, I find myself struggling to move beyond the faulty doctrine in an effort to grasp the author's more central point of God's compassion and desire for intimacy. It is this relational aspect of God that has clearly touched so many readers, and I truly want to understand that impact. But everytime God begins to explain some theological mystery, I find myself bristling a bit as so often the results range from speculative to inaccurate. Perhaps it's because I've been preaching through the Ten Commandments recently, but I can't help but thinking that the narrative presentation of God is brushing agains the second commandment in presenting a false or distorted image of the reality of God. Maybe the book will resolve some of this before its conclusion -- I'm certainly committed to hearing the entire story -- but at this point the "Papa" character is decidedly a different God than what I see presented in the history of Israel and the theological instruction of the New Testament.

I can't help but compare my feelings about this book to my initial response to Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian. McLaren also used a narrative approach to refelect on theological and relational issues, though he avoided the difficult territory of having God himself appear as a character in the story. When I read A New Kind of Christian and its sequels, I found myself drawn to the questions and conversation McLaren presents, even though I sharply disagree with several critically important theological assertions he makes. (I remember one woman in our church being deeply concerned that I enjoyed the book and actually recommended it to others because of the theological inaccuracies, but I'm completely comfortable sharing a book that presents a disagreeable conclusion if it stimulates deeper thinking and discussion. Sometimes I don't think Christians give people enough credit for thinking critically, so we react out of fear and slap on "taboo" labels inappropriately.) However, whereas I appreciated the questions McLaren raised -- even though I disagreed with some of his answers and quite a bit of his theological premise -- I'm finding myself responding to The Shack more defensively. I think there is a serious danger in presenting a mental image of God that strays from the truth that he has revealed about himself.

Still, I'll persevere through the story with a sincere appreciation of the author's efforts to reveal the heart of God and the deep intimacy that God pursues with each of us. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I can already understand why many people are being impacted by this story. But I also want to be theologically discriminating. I realize that most people are intelligent and perceptive enough not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" here and discard what seems to be a compelling communication of God's love. On the other hand, mental images of God can be a difficult thing to shake. Even the author of The Shack is concerned about our preconceived ideas of God's character limiting us from embracing the fulness of truth about his nature. I'm just concerned that this story may be replacing one faulty idea of God with another.